there is nothing about opinion in this particular line of thought.
Its pure logic and facts.
Not losing is better than losing.
WI have not lost for 4x longer timespan than AUS.
therefore they had a better period than the OZ.

Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?

Posts

37,157

Originally Posted by C_C

there is nothing about opinion in this particular line of thought.
Its pure logic and facts.
Not losing is better than losing.
WI have not lost for 4x longer timespan than AUS.
therefore they had a better period than the OZ.

simple as 1-2-3.

Its the games that counts, not the time period... so its not 4x's... its a fact that more games are played today

Its the games that counts, not the time period... so its not 4x's... its a fact that more games are played today

games count as well as timeperiod.
its not like they played 2 matches per year, they played on average 8-10 tests per year...thats not far off from 11-12 tests played by OZ currently.
So in terms of # of matches they played without losing a series, they are far far ahead of the OZ.

besides, too many matches a year devalues these records somewhat.
A team can get into a great purple patch or catch a team or two on their way down and by playing a lot of matches in a short time boost its record.
Doing it over a period of time implies you maintain a comprehensive lead over the field based on class alone...not just form.

you have your opinion (which you appear to think is more valid than mine)...I have mine

Originally Posted by C_C

AUS dominated the scene more strongly ?
What is their total unbeaten series record ?
How many years have they gone unbeaten ?..

To be honest I am not overly concerned by the statistics of the issue...comparing statistics of teams 20 years apart is futile, the game is a lot different now..IMO it is probably a lot harder to rack up a string of undefeated series NOW compared to back then, teams are playing all year round, there is a higher chance of a team playing now when the team just doesnt click etc

Originally Posted by C_C

Their dominance is FAR behind the WI's..... WI dominated BETTER teams far better.
MOST ENG fans agree that the ENG team in the 80s was better than the ENG team of recent times <maybe the current team is exempt but OZ beat a lot inferior ENG team in the past few years a lot less convincingly>

Again, you see it differently to me.Some of those England teams of the 80's were an utter joke,maybe not talent wise..but more importantly in the ability to fight, they simply packed in at the slightest hint of trouble from any team (apart from in 85 vs the weakest Australian team I have ever seen)...you say the teams WI's back then played were better..if you can show me a fool prove way of proving it,then I will concede that point.

Originally Posted by C_C

PAK- PAK had their best team during the 80s and were the only team to maintain some semblance of parity with the WI

Haha..so you are saying Pakistan had a stronger team in the early 80's thanthey ever have had. My **** they did...did you watch them get humiliated in the early 80's vs Australia, did you see them get outplayed for the most part in 82 vs a so so England team....Pakistan in the 90's was so much stronger.

Originally Posted by C_C

NZ ? well it is well known that the 1981 series was as blatant cheating as you get and thats what prompted the likes of Imran Khan, Lloyd etc. to argue in favour of neutral umpires- even Richard Hadlee's brother admitted that the umpire was in collusion with NZ cricket authorities.

OK, so we have to resort to this kind of rubbish do we...this of course is no proof that WI's werent outplayed by NZ..give the NZ team some credit please

Originally Posted by C_C

OZ was a weaker team and IND was a weaker team.
NZ was a stronger team in the 80s....

and not only did WI beat them, they beat them for 13 years straight without a series loss.
And one series loss in 19 years.
NO team has dominated to that effect and that is akin to OZ remaining unbeaten from 2001 to 2014. So far this is 2004. Another 10 years to go.

As per Lillee shaking up the WI, care to post Lillee's stats against WI ?
he struggled against them more often than not.
And Lillee was at his best vs the WI in 1975 and Viv stood tall and hooked him around the park.
So did Fredericks.
infact, the only bowlers to have the better of Richards < note: better of. not domination> was Chandrasekhar in IND and Akram near the late 80s when Richards was past it..

When I mentioned about Lillee and Richards, I wasnt trying to prove anything there, I was just making a comment about that dismissal of Richards....but please dont mention 75 if you are trying to prove any points about the WI's...WI's lost that series 5-1.

Again it is your opinion that Lillee was at his best in 75...there are many who thought he was at his peak during the Packer stuff in the late 70's,there are those who beleive that when he slowed down a tad, he was the best he had ever been (early 80's)

Originally Posted by C_C

Richard- most WI folks who've seen cricket from the 50s and 60s will tell you that Sobers, Kanhai and Hunte apart, none from the 60s would make it to the WI team- that includes the likes of three Ws.

And you are right- the four prong didnt all come at the same time and Roberts was past it soon after Marshall was in full cry. and like i said, its irrelevant taking the weakest WI team of the 70s/80s and comparing it with the OZ team of the past 4-5 years in full strength. By that logic, i can take the OZ team that played vs IND in OZ and say that OZ would've been decapitated 5-0. My comparison is based on the BEST WI team that TOOK THE FIELD in that time period and the BEST OZ team that TOOK THE FIELD in this time period. The four prong played 19 or 20 matches together and didnt lose one.

Ofcourse this is an opinion but this OZ team <or that of 2001> vs the WI of the 80s full strength would see WI win the series in 9 outta 10 instances.

Ok..please give us the team that you think was the best and tell me when they played together. I think you are right, that Aussie team that played India last year wasnt at its best,but I think it is acknowleged that the team for 2 to say 4 years ago was better....the WI's also went through short periods when the team they had wasnt as strong as the one the series previous..it works both ways...anyway give us that 'best' team and the series they played together in, I would like to see your opinion on it.

And I am glad you have noted that this is all your opinion..they way you are going on, it doesnt really give the impression that you are in anyway considering any one elses opinion other than your own. The way you are posting is coming over as slightly arrogant at best, if not extremely patronising to some of the people who are replying to you...it wont wash with me.

Just one more point..earlier you said in a post 'yes because you've never played test cricket.
Not so here.'

Haha..so you are saying Pakistan had a stronger team in the early 80's thanthey ever have had. My **** they did...did you watch them get humiliated in the early 80's vs Australia, did you see them get outplayed for the most part in 82 vs a so so England team....Pakistan in the 90's was so much stronger.

Greg Chapple would have to be the best batsman in modern cricket, not only did he maintain an average above 50 it was during the era of the great West Indies fast bowlers. Going by what C_C has said about comparing the bowlers of today with the WI bowlers of the 70's and 80's the high averages enjoyed by Gilly, Dravid and Tendulkar do not compare to the amazing class that Chapple would have required to keep his ave above 50 during the greatest ever bowling era.